Splitting the Difference
The latest announcement from the Labour party on tuition fees has all the hallmarks of 'triangulation' - the kind of cynical political positioning made famous by Bill Clinton.
Triangulation involves splitting the difference essentially - between two rival arguments - and the theory is that the public and the voters will love the 'reasonableness' - of the person or the party advocating the middle road.
Now the Liberal Democrats used to do this all the time - and a fat lot of good it did them until recently - and only in the context of a 'hung' parliament at Westminster.
Labour's commitment is to cap student fees at £6,000 - which for those of you without a calculator is exactly half way between the old cap of £3,000 (under the last Labour government) - and £9,000 which is the cap under the present coalition government.
Now if that isn't 'triangulation' - I'll eat my hat.
Worse still it's not even a manifesto pledge - just a commitment that Labour will spilt the difference if it comes to power - which has nothing to do with fairness or principle in terms of what's right or wrong.
And it opens up an interesting debate in Scotland - does the Labour party belive in the principle of student fees north of the border - or not?
The principle is that the people who directly benefit from a policy - should pay - or at least pay towards the cost.
Otherwise the cost is being met from general taxation and the people who do not directly benefit - are effectively subsidising those that do.
So people who do not have children - or whose children are grown up - are subsidising the cost of education for parents whose kids are still at school.
Which most people regard as having a wider social benefit - giving the next generation a good start and the basic life skills they need - hence we have no riots in the streets.
But higher education is a different argument - because the numbers of young people going into higher education have increased enormously - from around 7% to around 45% in a generation.
So who should meet the cost?
The young adults who benefit directly by going into much better paid jobs - or the whole of society including workers on lower paid jobs - who never have and never will go to university.
Labour's 'splitting the difference' solution doesn't address any of these issues.
Instead it's all about careful political positioning - and offering to subsidise young people who want to extend their education and study at university - and the families who support them.
Triangulation involves splitting the difference essentially - between two rival arguments - and the theory is that the public and the voters will love the 'reasonableness' - of the person or the party advocating the middle road.
Now the Liberal Democrats used to do this all the time - and a fat lot of good it did them until recently - and only in the context of a 'hung' parliament at Westminster.
Labour's commitment is to cap student fees at £6,000 - which for those of you without a calculator is exactly half way between the old cap of £3,000 (under the last Labour government) - and £9,000 which is the cap under the present coalition government.
Now if that isn't 'triangulation' - I'll eat my hat.
Worse still it's not even a manifesto pledge - just a commitment that Labour will spilt the difference if it comes to power - which has nothing to do with fairness or principle in terms of what's right or wrong.
And it opens up an interesting debate in Scotland - does the Labour party belive in the principle of student fees north of the border - or not?
The principle is that the people who directly benefit from a policy - should pay - or at least pay towards the cost.
Otherwise the cost is being met from general taxation and the people who do not directly benefit - are effectively subsidising those that do.
So people who do not have children - or whose children are grown up - are subsidising the cost of education for parents whose kids are still at school.
Which most people regard as having a wider social benefit - giving the next generation a good start and the basic life skills they need - hence we have no riots in the streets.
But higher education is a different argument - because the numbers of young people going into higher education have increased enormously - from around 7% to around 45% in a generation.
So who should meet the cost?
The young adults who benefit directly by going into much better paid jobs - or the whole of society including workers on lower paid jobs - who never have and never will go to university.
Labour's 'splitting the difference' solution doesn't address any of these issues.
Instead it's all about careful political positioning - and offering to subsidise young people who want to extend their education and study at university - and the families who support them.
